Don't they now calibrate them using pacing on the speedometer? I think I read somewhere that not calibrating it using tuning forks was not a problem anymore if they wrote in the notes it was calibrated at the beginning and end of shift on the speedo. I also recall getting that from officers notes in the past.

They just have to follow the test procedure listed in the manual before shift and after shift, which usually just involves pressing a TEST button and making a note that it passed.

However my point is that the USA manuals still have the requirement to use Tuning Forks and the requirement to do a Visual Tracking History, however in the 2010 these requirements suddenly got taken out of the Canadian manual.

So my question is why? Would Decatur just randomly decide to remove something from Canada's manual but leave it USA manual? I doubt it! So I would like to investigate and try to find out who got them to modify their Canadian manuals!

So I understand that the courts have decided that an officer merely has to follow the test procedure in the manual, which no longer involves tuning forks, and I am not disputing that.

But this still does not answer the "who" asked for it to be changed in Canada and "why" did they ask for it to be changed.

The Judge says this in paragraph 25-27 with regards to tuning forks:
" Third, the radar tests. The Appellant alleges that only in Ontario is the Genesis II Select radar not tested with a tuning fork. At the trial the AppellantÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s counsel stopped just short of alleging a fraud perpetrated by the government against the people of Ontario. The Appellant submits that the mere fact that the manual does not call for the use of a tuning fork test in Ontario requires that the prosecution explain this omission or else the charge cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellant brings no expert evidence as to any effect of such an omission on the accuracy of the radar device, only making broad sweeping submissions that if the manual is different in Ontario this must be explained by the prosecution. With respect the learned justice of the peace below properly stated and applied the applicable test here: did the officer properly test and operate the device according to the manufacturerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s specifications. Quite properly she answered this question in the affirmative on the evidence before her.
It seems to me that the AppellantÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s submission errs in not understanding where the onus lies here. If the evidence establishes, as here, that the officer operated the device properly and according to the manufacturerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s specifications, then the court is entitled to rely on this evidence unless it is rebutted by some evidence bringing that reliance into question. It is not for the crown to negative every possible factor that could bring the evidence into question. The evidentiary onus shifts to the Appellant who is alleging a basis for an error that lies outside the manufacturerÃƒÂ¢Ã‚â‚¬Ã‚â„¢s manual. This does not affect the overall onus in every such case that requires the crown to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plainly put, the fact that a tuning fork is used in other jurisdictions to test this device is irrelevant provided that the device is, as here, operated in accordance with the manual."

In fact notice the Judge says "The Appellant brings no expert evidence as to any effect of such an omission on the accuracy of the radar device" ...

Had this person had some kind of evidence as to WHY the tuning fork test had been removed from the manual, then this argument might be given some weight.

So that is what I am after ... any information that led up to the manual being changed.

Posting Awards

I can assure you, that book is correct and nothing has changed.
I am a calibration manager by profession and I do work on electronic equipment on a daily basis, all electronic measuring equipment are subject to drift and require regular calibration and adjustments to meet published specs.
The reason that part of the manual was removed is because Ontario requested a "customized" version that meets "their requirements"
If you manage to get anything to prove that Ontario requested this change to the manual, you have climbed the mount Everest, good luck, I would love to see that.
Good luck

@observer135 - Do you have any information on Ontario's request, as in who it was (like OPP or some other government division) that asked for the customized version? News articles? Forum posts?

I understand that I am indeed trying to climb Mount Everest, but I cannot find any information as to anybody else having tried to go this route before. Making a Freedom Of Information request to the wrong organization will indeed lead to getting nothing in return, so would be nice if I had an idea on where to start!